Poor pleadings and the CCBC

[pt2537]

If i had a £1.00 for each time a claim landed on my desk which failed to even set out the basics of the Claim which the Defendant is likely to meet at trial, i wouldn’t need to work ever again. The problem arises out of the CCBC in Northampton, many debt purchasers use firms […]


More...

[Amethyst]

Re: Poor pleadings and the CCBC

Ahh you'll like this one today then [MENTION=551]pt2537[/MENTION] - http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...LTD-Kearns-Sol - they forgot to use any decimal points in their numbers.

An application to strike out is obviously an option, but really the Claim should be pleaded properly in the first place and what’s more, often the Courts wont strike out and give the Claimant a second bite of the cherry. Plus having to apply to strike out leaves the client having to fund the Court fee for the application which isnt a small sum either, and lets not forget most of these clients are already in a financially distressed state so having to fork out more money clearly isnt right.

Indeed, bloody frustrating. Glad you've blogged about the issue !

I particularly like the CCA claims which are for goods/services/finance ..... grrrrr.

[mystery1]

Re: Poor pleadings and the CCBC

The Claimant claims an overdue balance under a contract with the original creditor. The contract was assigned. And the Claimant claims

That's better than the crock that CEL are currently sending out !

M1

[Nibbler]

Re: Poor pleadings and the CCBC

So presuming the High Court gives 'some clear guidance', how would or could that work practically?

Where or at what stage might it be enforced, who by, and how?

[R0b]

Re: Poor pleadings and the CCBC

@pt2537, [MENTION=1508]Nibbler[/MENTION]

I come across a case which might be relevant to this post regards to poor pleadings Nomura v Granda 2007. Strike out for abuse of process in regards to poorly drafted pleadings but also claim issued due to limitaiton period, worth a full read of the judgment but a few points to note:

para. 37

the key question must always be whether or not, at the time of issuing a writ, the claimant was in a position properly to identify the essence of the tort or breach of contract complained of and if given appropriate time to marshal what it knew, to formulate particulars of claim...If a claimant cannot do that which is necessary to prosecute the claim by setting out the basis for it, even in a rudimentary way, a claimant has no business to issue a claim form at all ‘in the hope that something may turn up

para 48.

... it becomes clear that it is the absence of knowledge of any basis for a claim and the inability properly to formulate a claim at the time of the issue of the Writ/Claim Form which is decisive. If there is insufficient knowledge to begin the process of putting together Particulars of Claim, without the need for “something to turn up”, there is no known or valid basis for a claim to be made. The generality of an endorsement may or may not show the absence of any ability to formulate a claim and an investigation of the underlying position may often be necessary in order to establish whether there is a known basis for a claim which can properly be pleaded in Particulars of Claim, on the knowledge then available, given time to put what is known into a pleading.

Whilst I see your point in that courts are reluctant to strike out claims which don't comply with the CPR, the courts see strike outs as draconian and to be used as a last resort, so if it can be remedied then the courts are likely to give the claimant a second chance. Although it might not be the case if you have pointed out to them and they refuse then a claim could be struck out - some other cases to read on are:

Reckitt Benkiser v Home Pairfum 2004,

Soo v Youg 2011 (the court said it should not strike out without giving the claimant the right to amend first),

Spencer v Barclays Bank, unreported 2009 (strike out may be appropriate if the claimant's have made it clear they have no intention of amending the statements of case)

In my experience of attending several hearings, and in partiuclar a couple of high court hearings, I have heard judges state that there is often an overlap between a strike out and a summary judgment application particularly when it comes to poor pleadings in the particulars of claim. Although the particulars on a claim form should be brief, it should set out the relevant cause of action.

The combination of a strike out and summary judgment application allows the court to determine if for example there are no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim or an abuse of process, the court can exercise its power to strike out the claim and then enter summary judgment in favour of the defendant at the same time.